Alrighty, looks like it's time for me to dispel some misconceptions. *dons cape*

The mercury compound found in some vaccines is broken down into a compound called ethyl-mercury. The mercury compound found in fish is methyl-mercury. This is an ABSOLUTELY important distinction. Methyl mercury bio-accumulates in tissues, and ethyl mercury does NOT. Ethyl Mercury is quickly eliminated from the body. It is used as a preservative to prevent contamination of the vaccine.

Its use in vaccines has been found safe in many scientific studies. (Dr Mercola and Natural News are not scientific sources).

What many people fail to realize is that if thimerosal isn't used as a preservative, then some other chemical has to be used in its place. Phenol is one of these, and it has been found to bioaccumulate in tissues. Benzethonium chloride is also used in vaccines, but my knowledge on this is sparse. Another preservative found in vaccines is 2-phenoxyethanol. Studies have found that this can be harmful when it is ingested (it is found in cosmetic products).

Its not a misconception - I quoted the half life of thiomersal = 18 days.

THATS NOT ELIMINATED THE SAME DAY !!!

I am FULLY aware of the distinction between ethyl-mercury and Methyl-mercury. Both are highly toxic - but methyl-mercury can have greater accumulation and ethyl-mercury is eliminated faster.
However the issue revolves around the fact that toxicity can occur at small amounts - it is not a straight forward dilution effect, we are not dealing with homeopathy here.

The contrast with neomycin I gave is excellent - were dilution of neomycin makes it really insignificant and the drug as very short half life.

I have a long list of studies, definitely not "natural news ! " I stick to my original post that it is difficult to detect potential neurotoxicity and some people may be more sensitive - I would not be happy exposing children to this.
I am a hospital haem-oncology pharmacy manager - quite familiar with toxicology and medicine 1st hand and primary research.

As for adults - I think the risks are very low considering eating fish like tuna exposes people to methyl-mercury. Whilst methyl-mercury levels are variable in a can of tuna for example (~ <0.1 to 80mcg - around 25mcg is often quoted) - and is more likely to accumulate this doesn't really justify giving extra ethyl-mercury. We shouldn't be exposed to ANY mercury in any form - its nasty stuff.

The analogy I might give is with Thalidomide - which is now regularly used as an anti-cancer medicine. Thalidomide works for treating multiple myeloma for example however we have EXTREMELY strict guidelines to make sure it never goes anywhere near anyone pregnant. This includes MALES having thalidomide with the possibility that some may be excreted in sperm. Also includes special handling and dealing with wasted drug. The quantities involved here are ridiculously small - but even tiny sub-therapeutic amounts can cause birth defects to a fetus due to extreme toxicity & sensitivity to the fetus.

Some drugs at certain dilutions are completely harmless - others only need a few molecules to cause damage (every molecule interacts and causes damage, obviously there is a lottery for which neurons are damaged if only a few molecules are present).

I am not an expert on phenol - however did once spill some on my hand with a truly nasty effect. People have never seen me run so fast to wash it off. The stuff is seriously corrosive.

However phenol does have a powerful dilution effect making it virtually harmless in vaccines. Like the hydrochloric acid added to a vaccines it becomes insignificant at the concentrations found in a vaccine. Of course hydrochloric acid is corrosive when concentrated - but dilute solutions are harmless.

We cannot be worried about everything considering there are toxins everywhere including in the pristine countryside - going OCD on every possible toxin will just drive someone crazy and create toxins in their own body to accumulate !!!!!! We are bombarded every day by cosmic background radiation - does that mean we have to live in a lead bunker ?
Oh no, not a lead bunker - we might get lead poisoning !

At some point common sense prevails and we cannot eliminate all risks.

Personally I DO NOT take and never have taken any flu vaccines, I think it is an unnecessary risk and it may be beneficial for the body to fight flu occasionally by itself, just an inconvenience for a few days. However for some people flu can be lethal - and the advantage of a vaccine outweighs any risks eg for elderly prone to respiratory infections.

(12-03-2014 06:41 PM)Baruch Wrote: I am not an expert on phenol - however did once spill some on my hand with a truly nasty effect. People have never seen me run so fast to wash it off. The stuff is seriously corrosive.

However phenol does have a powerful dilution effect making it virtually harmless in vaccines. Like the hydrochloric acid added to a vaccines it becomes insignificant at the concentrations found in a vaccine. Of course hydrochloric acid is corrosive when concentrated - but dilute solutions are harmless.

We cannot be worried about everything considering there are toxins everywhere including in the pristine countryside - going OCD on every possible toxin will just drive someone crazy and create toxins in their own body to accumulate !!!!!! We are bombarded every day by cosmic background radiation - does that mean we have to live in a lead bunker ?
Oh no, not a lead bunker - we might get lead poisoning !

At some point common sense prevails and we cannot eliminate all risks.

Personally I DO NOT take and never have taken any flu vaccines, I think it is an unnecessary risk and it may be beneficial for the body to fight flu occasionally by itself, just an inconvenience for a few days. However for some people flu can be lethal - and the advantage of a vaccine outweighs any risks eg for elderly prone to respiratory infections.

And what about the one for meningitis? Thank you so much for all the great feedback by the way.

(12-03-2014 06:41 PM)Baruch Wrote: Personally I DO NOT take and never have taken any flu vaccines, I think it is an unnecessary risk and it may be beneficial for the body to fight flu occasionally by itself, just an inconvenience for a few days. However for some people flu can be lethal - and the advantage of a vaccine outweighs any risks eg for elderly prone to respiratory infections.

The toxins in vaccines are all in miniscule amounts. I have absolutely no worries about the ethyl mercury found in the flu vaccine. How quickly we forget the devastating effects that particular strains of flu can have. The "spanish" flu was particularly devastating, not for the elderly, but for the young people that had great immune systems. Their strong immune systems were actually their downfall based on how this particular strain influenced the body's immune response

"it may be beneficial for the body to fight flu occasionally"

That's like saying it may be beneficial to get into a car wreck every once in a while--just to make sure your reflexes are in tune!

The benefits of the flu vaccine go beyond just preventing the flu--a Harvard study has linked it to lessening the risk of hear attacks and stroke by 1/3rd over the following year! Those are some statistics worth looking into.

Now, show me statistics that talk about negative effects from thimerosal and I will gladly read it and think about it more.

Let's expand upon this further, since I have time to spare. Pregnant women are told to get the flu shot. Their immune systems are not as 'strong' during pregnancy, making them more susceptible to getting the flu.

Pregnant women that due get sick and have high fevers or develop pneumonia from the flu, have a higher risk of delivering prematurely.

Stefan Dombrowski has conducted EXCELLENT research on maternal fever during pregnancy and the effects to the fetus. A study which he headed "<i>of more than 6,000 children by Finnish and American researchers found that the offspring of mothers who suffered influenza or other fevers, as opposed to the common cold, in the last six months of pregnancy were more likely to suffer emotional and developmental problems, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder</i>"

Show me evidence that thimerosal from vaccines is shown to be worse than the complications encountered from the flu, and I will *gladly* reconsider.

This is a fragment of some of the research which show potential links between thiomersal and toxicity - including very low doses comparable to vaccines
. Also discussed are the similarities and differences between EthylHg and MethyHg.
It is not so naiive and simplistic that EthylHg is somehow cleared very fast from the body - some of the metabolites are other forms of EthlHg and half life which can be upto 18 days - longer & more toxic in babies. An 18 day half life is EXTREMELY long compared to many other drugs & toxins we are exposed to as I discussed previously.

Yes, there are some studies which show little evidence for harm - so the conclusion is not necessarily conclusive
Eg Prenatal methylmercury exposure from ocean fish consumption in the Seychelles child development study. Lancet 361: 1686-92
However this is disputed by other studies showing possible harm
see link for possible explanations.http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScienc...rsetal.htm

The basic issue is dismissing EthylHg because some studies show less accumulation than MethylHg is not so straight forward and simplistic.
There are also many differences which are often not discussed eg high peak concentrations of ethylHg following a vaccine compared to repeated background but much lower levels of MethylHg - very difficult to compare.

As for direct comparisons to thiomersal vs flu - this is very difficult to do due to many variables and cannot really do a direct comparison.

Clearly for most healthy people flu is more of an inconvenience and dont think vaccination is essential.
However I did mention that for vulnerable groups of people flu is clearly a higher risk as we know it can be lethal.

Comparisons to the Spanish flu are alarmist and somewhat straw man - there are many factors which made the spanish flu particularly bad other than just a virulent & lethal strain. (post WW1 and generally poor healthcare compared to today)
Also (and mainly) the spanish flu had a unique violent cytokine storm effect - making the healthiest people the most vulnerable as their immune system launches the equivalent of a thermonuclear bomb. Perhaps being an immune-comprimised elderly person or child might save your life in such cases ! Looks like the Spanish Flu took place when all the worst factors all came together - a particularly virulent strain, a mechanism of action which turns the immune system into a bomb blast, secondary infections difficult to deal with @1918 (prior to widespread antibiotics for 2dry bacterial infections), vast numbers of people on the move post WW1, devastation post WW1 to infrastructure amongst other factors.

That's like saying it may be beneficial to get into a car wreck every once in a while--just to make sure your reflexes are in tune!

Not really a good analogy.

HOWEVER - what I will agree with. that you did not mention is that by having the flu - even if one doesnt mind the inconvenience they may put OTHER vulnerable people at risk. In fact if a teacher for example has flu and then passes it onto a classroom of children - how many of those children may get seriously harmed ?A Flu Vaccine is ZERO risk to others.

This is a powerful pro-vaccination argument I'm surprised you didn't mention.

That's like saying it may be beneficial to get into a car wreck every once in a while--just to make sure your reflexes are in tune!

Not really a good analogy.

HOWEVER - what I will agree with. that you did not mention is that by having the flu - even if one doesnt mind the inconvenience they may put OTHER vulnerable people at risk. In fact if a teacher for example has flu and then passes it onto a classroom of children - how many of those children may get seriously harmed ?A Flu Vaccine is ZERO risk to others.

This is a powerful pro-vaccination argument I'm surprised you didn't mention.

I was getting to that one eventually--as a teacher I get my flu shot for that exact reason. I think the argument of "I'm healthy, so *I* don't need it" is a selfish argument. There are people that are immunocompromised that can't receive vaccines, thus they rely on others to receive the vaccine as a form of protection.
And I knew you were going to call me out on that analogy lol.

Getting the flu vaccine, in essence, *is* making your immune system get a work out in. The immune response is occurring, without the risk of developing the flu. If we want to worry about the miniscule amounts of Ethyl mercury in vaccines then we have to take a look at every other harmful chemical we come into contact with on a DAILY basis. Triclosan, BPA, PBDEs, etc, etc.